Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The proposal is located in geographic area of high importance both culturally coo natural biodiversity and climate dynamics key in Mesoamerica
Evidence B:The areas are within priority terestrial conservation areas identified by the Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) and within or adjacent to key biodiversity areas
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: tropical forests high carbon concentration
Evidence B:not indicated but maps suggest a moderate density
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Geographical areas, have recognized forms of tenure for the benefit of IPLC, however the substantive IP rights are limited because of the peasant agrarian approach.
Evidence B:System of ejidos governed by local members assembly with long history of engagement
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The project, can deepen the cultural dynamics of the geographical area and the importance of social, economic and environmental organizational cultural systems that may take shape in cross-cultural models
Evidence B:Home of 10 of the 69 Indigenous linguistic groups of Mexico which is 14.5% of the cultural base of Mexico. Each of these groups have a particular biocultural model.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: There is a collision threat, little depth about the relationship of the use of biodiversity
Evidence B:The different sites have different threats the range of which goes from moderate to high. These include loss of forest cover, cumulative development pressure such as cultural loss and challenging socioeconomic realities
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: It emphasizes the opportunity to develop strong governance capabilities between base organizations.
Evidence B:The Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2019-2024 (PND) focuses on improving wellbeing, inclusion and the valuing heritage as the basis. It emphasises sustainable development as the new paradigm. The project is constructed with the intent of taking advantage of this legal framework and " cerrar la brecha entre las estrategias productivas que hoy tienen mucha relevancia para el Gobierno Mexicano, y el mantener zonas de reservas claves mediante la integración de esquemas de manejo paisajÃstico."
Esto hace ver que hay un marco legal de oportunidad indiscutible y que programas como Sembrando Vida, Jóvenes Construyendo el Futuro, Producción para el Bienestar, entre otros, pueden ser impulsores de las estrategias de manejo activo y sustentable del territorio,
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: No amply clear government support, there are indications integration policy actions of IPLC in management development from the kiss and integrate sustainable development variables
Evidence B:its importance seems to be recognised and while there does not seem to be any direct support it seems that their is supportive framework
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: there are initiatives gestated and developed in collaboration with IPLC, it is unclear the level of success and sustainability.
Evidence B:The communities seem to be well organised and experience in productive and conservation projects
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There is a strong relationship and synergies potential of existing projects, the success of the proposal
Evidence B:10 very relevant projects are listed.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: It is explicitly focus of the project, based on the productive rural landscape. It has high intension to integrate governance systems already established and strengthened
Evidence B:The project seems to be well thought to contribute to greater capacity of communities to steward their lands and forests, improve livelihoods , improve technical capacities and foster learning across communities.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The social aspect of organizational strengthening is relevant for sustainability, this aspect requires further.
Evidence B:The project seems to be well thought out even at this stage
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The challenges and synergies with processes that are being developed, can directly benefit the scope of the goals of the program.
Evidence B:In terms of investing in four zones
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: There is a clear relationship scope of the proposal with indicators of the program. The geographical scope is ambitious and will only possible leverage resources.
Evidence B:the level of ambition might be over the range
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: There are a variety of financing options
Evidence B:Two sizable projects of high relevance are indicated
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The proposal poses a direct goal underrated, should be exploited paper connectivity and indirect contributions larger scale.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: There is a recognition of cultural criteria, slightly addressed in the development of the project requires more depth as traditional knowledge is integrated into the proposal and feedback on innovation
Evidence B:the additional indicators dont seem to really foucs on cultural and livelihood results
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The implementation of the social base, impacts provides medium- and long-term sustainability of practices for sustainable use of biodiversity and climate mitigation is not very clear.
Evidence B:The organizations seem to be strong and well established and the strategy is to strengthen their capacity for conservation in the work they already do.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Ambioso the proposal is not deforestation in areas of the project, however the national policy framework and synergies of Mexico recognizes the goals of the NDC
Evidence B:They seem to be well aligned tih NDC and national priorities in terms of reducing deforestation and restoration of lands
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: the importance of gender is recognized, it is necessary to show mechanisms and / or strategies to promote better conditions of gender in the process.
Evidence B:There seems to be a high level of experience with gender mainstreaming
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Background driven in the area, show extensive experience and satisfactory results, it is more clear what aspect agroecological and market that cultural social integration of IPCL
Evidence B:The possibility of woking on four indigenous zones to bridge economic development and sustainable management of resources could produce important lessons.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: There is a strong integration of IPLC in partnerships with government organizations and NGOs Mexico.
Evidence B:The project seems to be well grounded on the realitie of the communities and reflect indigenous priorities.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: He has demonstrated leadership, it is unclear the type of governance mechanisms of processes should deepen the governance framework of the project and how interconnection between the various levels of IPLC especially if they are local governments
Evidence B:Several relevant projects have been carried out by organizations. The quality of the proposal seems to reflect on-ground leadership.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: IPLC organizations integrate, it is unclear their role in the design of the proposal and the consultation mechanism in the implementation of the project
Evidence B:the roles seem to have been thought out even at this stage
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Show an organization to achieve the proposed challenges, it is very ambitious. there must be more to coordinate actions specification and quality management mechanisms of processes
Evidence B:Several projects are listed.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Have a history clearly defined, propose 3 patients, only 1 has the scale of the solictado financing.
Evidence B:several sizeable projects are listed
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:no explanation provided